To tell you the truth the unfolding of point, line, and plane(early drawings that I had, have since been lost) to me seemed logical as one moved to the idea of cylinders and brane as a extreme journey into an abstract space that few could follow. Even for myself. I did have these early visualizations long before string theory came into the picture that lead too, me seeing a version of the intersection of such brane. I wish I could find the drawing that I did so many years ago. Why this has always piqued my interest.

In the Kaluza-Klein picture, the extra dimensions
are envisioned as being rolled up in compact space with a very small
volume, with massive excited states called Kaluza-Klein modes whose
mass makes them too heavy to be observed in current or future accelerators.

The braneworld scenario for having extra dimensions
while hiding them from easy detection relies on allowing the extra dimensions
to be noncompact, but with a warped
metric that depends on the extra dimensions and so is not a direct product
space. A simple model in five spacetime dimensions is the Randall-Sundrum
model, with metric See: Kaluza-Klein in String Theory

I definitely do not understand it all but I do understand the historical journey. I am glad to see that such evolutions can help people move forward in the relationship of how one may look at physics approach.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

The
general theory of relativity is as yet incomplete insofar as it has
been able to apply the general principle of relativity satisfactorily
only to gravitational fields, but not to the total field. We do not yet
know with certainty by what mathematical mechanism the total field in
space is to be described and what the general invariant laws are to
which this total field is subject. One thing, however, seems certain:
namely, that the general principal of relativity will prove a necessary
and effective tool for the solution of the problem for the total field. -Out of My Later Years, Pg 48, Albert Einstein (bold and underlined added for emphasis)

***

You see, I am formulating qualifiers as to the nature of the question about the total field? The idea here is that from a symmetrical state, and not wanting infinity to be such a thing, what is the underlying the question of what exists as a moduli figure? The total field is as if, some vacua, which has a hold on the idea of time and where this leads one too? No time.

So there is then this evolution of the moduli figure that rests in the valley, as to the question of what as a probabilistic event may be determined, as if, the higg's. It reveals that the higg's, is not the end all too the story and I question the nature of the total field..

Excerpt from "Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer - A Physics Experiment on the International Space Station" by Dr. Sam Ting: The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS-02) is a state-of-the-art particle physics detector constructed, tested and operated by an international team composed of 60 institutes from 16 countries and organized under United States Department of Energy (DOE) sponsorship. The AMS-02 will use the unique environment of space to advance knowledge of the universe and lead to the understanding of the universe's origin by searching for antimatter, dark matter and measuring cosmic rays.

Experimental evidence indicates that our Galaxy is made of matter; however, there are more than 100 hundred million galaxies in the universe and the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe requires equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Theories that explain this apparent asymmetry violate other measurements. Whether or not there is significant antimatter is one of the fundamental questions of the origin and nature of the universe. Any observations of an antihelium nucleus would provide evidence for the existence of antimatter. In 1999, AMS-01 established a new upper limit of 10-6 for the antihelium/helium flux ratio in the universe. AMS-02 will search with a sensitivity of 10-9, an improvement of three orders of magnitude, sufficient to reach the edge of the expanding universe and resolve the issue definitively.

The visible matter in the universe (stars) adds up to less than 5 percent of the total mass that is known to exist from many other observations. The other 95 percent is dark, either dark matter (which is estimated at 20 percent of the universe by weight or dark energy, which makes up the balance). The exact nature of both still is unknown. One of the leading candidates for dark matter is the neutralino. If neutralinos exist, they should be colliding with each other and giving off an excess of charged particles that can be detected by AMS-02. Any peaks in the background positron, anti-proton, or gamma flux could signal the presence of neutralinos or other dark matter candidates.

Six types of quark (u, d, s, c, b and t) have been found experimentally, however all matter on Earth is made up of only two types of quarks (u and d). It is a fundamental question whether there is matter made up of three quarks (u, d and s). This matter is known as Strangelets. Strangelets can have extremely large mass and very small charge-to-mass ratios. It would be a totally new form of matter. AMS will provide a definitive answer on the existence of this extraordinary matter. The above three examples indicates that AMS will probe the foundations of modern physics.

Cosmic radiation is a significant obstacle to a manned space flight to Mars. Accurate measurements of the cosmic ray environment are needed to plan appropriate countermeasures. Most cosmic ray studies are done by balloon-borne satellites with flight times that are measured in days; these studies have shown significant variations. AMS-02 will be operative on the ISS for a nominal mission of 3 years, gathering an immense amount of accurate data and allowing measurements of the long term variation of the cosmic ray flux over a wide energy range, for nuclei from protons to iron. After the nominal mission, AMS-02 can continue to provide cosmic ray measurements. In addition to the understanding the radiation protection required for manned interplanetary flight, this data will allow the interstellar propagation and origins of cosmic rays to be pinned down. See: The newly-installed Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer-2 (AMS)

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

I wanted to expand on where the title,"Another Kind of Sideways." This blog posting came from an interview with Clifford of Asymptotia by PBS. He had a posting of his own entitled Multiverse Musings about a Nova series on PBS in the Fall related to Brian Greene's book, The Fabric of the Cosmos.

Where would these other universes be in relation to ours? Is there a way to envision it?

Well, we live in three spatial dimensions: We move back and forth, up and down, left to right. And then there's time, so that's our four-dimensional universe. Another universe might be essentially right next to ours by going in another direction that's not one of those four. We might call it "another kind of sideways." See: Riddles of the Multiverse

The whole context of the idea of the Multiverse could have in my layman view be classified as speaking about and argued as the basis of "existing outside of time." I just wanted to say that mathematically this definition of the Multiverse can actually exist in that framework, yet had to be extrapolated to the real universe we live in and how other universes may apply.

SOCRATES: But if he always possessed this knowledge he would always have known; or if he has acquired the knowledge he could not have acquired it in this life, unless he has been taught geometry; for he may be made to do the same with all geometry and every other branch of knowledge. Now, has any one ever taught him all this? You must know about him, if, as you say, he was born and bred in your house.SEE:Meno by Plato

I am always interested in the way a correlation is struck, from a scientist's mind when looking at the world and the comparisons they may find in the real world. I mean, to stand on top of a mountain as I did, you get this sense of the terrain, and how the landscape appears. How from an idealist position, a mathematical position is described and how the universe can be described?

I find it hard sometimes to try and explain something that is "not outside of time." That such description of reality while confounding to those like me less able to understand the mathematical world of such truths that contrary to Lee Smolin's opinion such schematics can be found to exist "within each of us." How we build our world from the inside, and how we contain it.

Is the mathematical description of polytopes any less real as a mathematical basis?

If one is to believe that a mountain top represents some "perfect symmetry" then what said all those places in the valleys can exist and would not represent some genus figure? What are we saying about the possible universes, locations within the universe, and the creation of?

That a pencil standing on point, could fall one way or another, or a description of a false vacuum to a true could represent something leading away from such symmetry? Why the problem with such mathematical and schematize attributes? Would you as a scientist turn your back on such mathematical interpretations of the world?

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

I must say to you that in my case I am asking of Calabi Yau's, can have some predictability to how universe selection is accomplished and thus any steady development in mathematics pushing that landscape to credibility?

This entry is for representing a point of view much clearer then had been previously demonstrated in the following links shown below at the bottom of this post.

I wouldn’t exactly say that the evidence presented on its own would not have been enough, yet rather that it became more quickly evident and compelling as the speaker was relaying his findings and conclusions while reliving for us his ‘eureka” moment you might say. This has the learner trade places with the discoverer as to experience the moment. Anthony Zee had the same effect on me in the book I have mentioned. Where I am certain you are correct is that despite the abilities of the teacher if one is not open to things in these ways they will never be sought to be enjoyed. This for me is the difference in simply learning a fact and realizing a truth.

Of course I like humour and in this context, it can show another side to the coin to show that while it has a quality to it in that humour, it also has a science consideration in structure as well. The Aristotelean arch is representative here then of the moment that the climax is reached, as if telling a story about, and we know very well its meaning.

It is the assessment of a "body of thought" that arranges itself around a progressive point of view, that while matter forming in retention times of those smaller peaks of the classroom it became the written word of the orators. You see, smaller peaks versus written transmission of the idea.

That this place can reside in the thinking mind is a quandary of sorts knowing full well the probabilistic outcome ensures that the direction, after critical thinking, is the way in which the mind comes to see itself as it rests in the valley below. Conceptually the thinking has formed.

You see while some are expanding their physical horizons, it is of note that I see they had been expanding their mental one too. Some have comment on the flexibility of an intelligent mind to traverse across the globe of that same thinking mind, to expand the relationships that are psycho relevant in an metaphorical relation to contract it to a humour of a kind, and a hence a deeper meaning.

So in all aspects while we see this relational pictorial chart it is in relation to the potential I see, that any mind might have settled down to a state to have caught the jest of the revision so that its relevance can been seen in that same relationship to the universe at large.

So the peak in this case is a rendition of the unstableness of the pencil in relation to Cosmic inflation. That any mind might come to this position is to recognize that it has found the fastest route to the understanding of the symmetry of this universe and that th energy contained here is although unstable it is found to be expressive.

Saturday, March 08, 2008

fancier way of saying that is that in general, it's okay to model the space around us using the Euclidean metric. But the Euclidean model stops working when gravity becomes strong, as we'll see later. The Euclidean model for space

The magic square of "Albrect Durer" located in my index on the right is fascinating from the point of view that such a symmetry can be derived from the view of moving in an abstract space.

Trying to understand the implication of what is happening in a stronger gravitational field is an abstract journey for me as well, while I hold "thoughts of lensing" in my mind as a accumulative effect of something that is happening naturally out in space.

The move to Lagrangian points out in space is also an accumulative effect of thinking in this abstract way.

I not only think of the "magnetic field as as an associative value for that abstractness," it is a geometry that is the same for me, as I try to unravel the energy valuation of points(KK Tower) of any location in space. While the valuation of a circle on a 2 dimensional screen sees a string vibrating, I am moving this perception to valuations onto mathematical models.

I have nobody to help this way I have to push forward, knowing there will be mistakes, and that hopefully I am grasping the full scope of seeing in a abstract way.

It was the beginning of what might be called (and in fact is called) Stringy Geometry. The point is that strings are not points, and specifically, their extended nature means that in addition to being able to see the usual geometrical properties of a space that the theory like General Relativity can see, the strings can see other, intrinsically stringy, data. There is a quantity in the theory that is called the Kalb-Ramond field (or just the “B-field”) that can be used to measure how much the string can winds on or wraps a piece of the geometry, in essence. The parameter a that measures the size of a piece of the space that collapses when the geometry becomes singular, is essentially joined by another parameter, b, that sort of measures how much the strings have wound or smeared themselves on that piece of the space. The upshot is that a and b naturally combine themselves into a complex parameter that naturally describes the resolution process, solving the puzzle that the Mathematicians faced.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

"I have never deviated from the name I use, so you get the sense of who I am.

I do not see how "pushing back the physics and energies involved" would have made these issues abut cosmology inept or classed as fantasy in the making.

Tim May, some things helped toward our understanding whether they are in the kitchen "to help gain in conceptual understanding, what others are less then able to explain in their opinion biased.

Gabe:I really don’t have any knowledge of this, but: What exactly are they trying to say about liquid helium phases and extra dimensions?

Has anyone has sufficiently answered Coin or Gabe in their questions to have offered a conclusion?

Thanks Bee for challenging what would have otherwise been a chorus of the same ole, same ole."

Now what choice do I have, if I were to comment on anything that had to do with what "String theory is doing?" Now, I would have supposedly worn out the title of any string theory article as coming from Zombie central.

Now you know the title of this post and it's origination. The source of inspiration that allows me to comment and let stand, as to the substance of Peter Woit's post. The comments that come along as well.

Zombies

What more can I say, that by putting out front the reasons why this process is not just some fantasy woven for illusionists Peter seems to qualify. To all those who may speak toward the topic of string theory or not.

Will media just leave it "to the expert" to speak for them and not challenge what is the highest opinion Peter has for the topic of string theory? I guess if you are not willing to do the work, then like Scientist, it is better to not write an article and let it die a quick death.

The Articles in Question?

Since I too cannot gain access to the Nature article without paying, I can only go by the "press releases" that Peter has been kind enough to show us. So these are directed to the Nature article.

Again it is one that has to be purchased from nature. All I can do it "re-quote" the selections Peter has made, and direct you to the quotes in question. You have to take my word for what is represented and how it is used by Peter. Sorry. See source of quotes here

The subject of string cosmology is a hot one these days, with theoretical advances in understanding string dynamics riffing with recent precise observations of the cosmic microwave background

The quality of the details of the comparison between 3He and cosmology is not really the point. Like a tap-dancing snake, what is amazing is not that it is done well, but that it is done at all.

Contribution to Zombie Central?

I can only assume that the example given is none other then what Peter has classified?

Now, just hold your horses here while we consider not only the context of this article by Richard Highfield, but of the very questions I myself have asked that we might consider the context of the Telegraph article other then contributing to Zombie Central.

Warning to Viewers

It is true that there has been a lot of debate about how information currently being dealt within in science articles are giving concern to people at the forefront of science. So in this effort I see what Peter is saying. Scientists are indeed asking for this responsibility, and not just of the media themself , but of the individual in their "pursuit of the truth" of what is being portrayed out there in the science media's global vision.

I do not sanction "the classifications" that have been drummed up by Peter Woit, from intelligent design theorists, to Zombies.

The View of the Cosmos?

Now why is it that we would look to the cosmos and ask ourselves about the views that would happen in the context of universal display, as having some relevances to the microsomal world that surrounds us.

Over and over again, we are directed to applications of what happens in that cosmos as experimental processes which reveal the origins of the universe in that microcosm view? So they use a test tube. The origins of life has it's basis in that tube on a simplistic level, whether you'd like to think so or not.

Would it have been better to use the "image of the tube" and an emergent image of the colliders over top of it, as a better view of the microscopic view of the world we live in?

So to get from the cosmos pallet of investigation, to one of drawing analogicalviews of the vortices, is not so uncommon that we can see such vortices out there in the cosmos and not draw some conclusion to the "relativistic interpretation" that may arise in some super fluid?

I can understand Tim May's "bubble in the test analogy in the kitchen," but I would have drawn a better parallel to sonofusion(you can find examples of this on this site) as an example about reduction to the "principals of the early universe." While I see such collapse dynamically related to "gravitational collapse" this is my view with regards to the increase in temperature values that may have been attributed to the ideas about the energy increase in blackhole development and motivation for providing the routes for cosmological expansion rates. An analogy, yes.

The escape pathway for that "extra energy" to loose itself, while the computations of the values of particle creations are left for inspection. Where did that extra energy go? Is it such a "bad question" to have when looking at the microscopic view of particle creation in the birth of our cosmos? To have the universe being in such a cosmological state, that the variance of speed of expansion shall vary? Explained, with such a idea?

Relativistic Fluid Dynamics: Physics for Many Different Scales-Nils Andersson and Gregory L. Comer

So you understand that the views of the string theorist is not limited to the microcosmic view, but endorses the cosmological one as well.:) See the Lagrangian views supplied on this site to understand how gravity has been incorporated in the cosmological view.

Anyway twice I have been reminded of the mathematics "are not" the reality of the situation, and that governing such thought is devoid of the reality we are dealing with. I have an issue with this because, we have discovered number patterns that underly nature just as Coxeter believes that "the process" is just awaiting to be discovered. Then, we have found the thread through things.

So, people do not like to believe that we are a mathematical structure, yet, we have seen where hidden numbered processes have been detailed for us in the expressions of nature.

So you see we are looking for the constants(a product of the standard model), yet, we do not know what that constant will look like in the valley. While it is based on a "gravitational inclination," the formation has a probability "greatly enhanced" when thinking about the entropy of the blackhole. The "energy valuation" from mass while in gravitational collapse, creates the multitude of possibilities(heat)?

Saturday, September 22, 2007

"I’m a Platonist — a follower of Plato — who believes that one didn’t invent these sorts of things, that one discovers them. In a sense, all these mathematical facts are right there waiting to be discovered."Donald (H. S. M.) Coxeter

If I had thought there was a way to describe the "interior" of the blackhole, it would be by recognizing the dimensionality the blackhole had to offer. One had to know where to locate "this place in the natural world." If we had understood the energy values of the particle world colliding(that space and frame of reference, then what were we finding that such a place in dimensionality could exist in the natural world? Yoyu had to accept that there was dynamical moves that werre being defined as a possiility.

So what ways would allow us to do this, and this is part of the idea that came to me as I was thinking about the place where all possibilities could exist. Yet, what existed as "moduli form in the valleys" was being extended. So I am connecting other things here too.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

I had been following this research because of what I had been trying to understand when we take our understanding down to a certain level. That level is within the context of us probing the collision process for evidence of "some new physics" that we had not seen before.

What valuation of this process allows us to think that while speaking to "probing this perfect fluid" that we had not discovered some mechanism within it, that allows us to see Coleman Mandula effects being behind, as a geometrical unfoldment from one state into another?

If we had looked at the Genus 1 figure then what avenue would help us discern what could come from the string theory landscape and the "potential hill" discerned from the blackhole horizon? What tunnelling effect could go past the hill climbers and valley crossers to know that you could cut "right through the hill?"

So while I am looking for some indications as I did in the strangelet case, as, evidence of this crossover, this had to have some relation to how we seen the neutrinos in development. This was part of the development as we learnt of the history of John Bahcall.

This does not minimize the work we see of Gran Sasso in relation to the LHC project.

Honestly, I do not know how someone who could work on the project, could not know what they were working on? It as if the "little parts" of the LHC project only cater to the worker Bees working just aspects of the project and their specializations.

Whilst now, you go way up and overlook this project. To see the whole context measured within that "one tiny big bang moment." Trust me when I say, we shall not minimize the effect of calling the collision process as "one tiny moment," for you may never see the whole context of this project being developed for this "one thing."

I did not realize the shortcomings that scientists place on themselves when they do specialize. I just assumed they would know as much as I did and see the whole project? I do not say this unkindly, just that it is a shock to me that one could work the string theory models and not realize what they are working on. I have heard even Jacques say there is no connection and listening to Peter Woit, I was equally dismayed that he did not realize what the string theory model was actually doing as it found it's correlation in the developing views of how we look at the moments of creation.

I think my comment on previous post of looking for the perfect fluid should have been here.

Also I do not think this changes how we look at string theory as a model probing the perfect fluid, and "the understanding" of developing a mechanism for this "cross over point?"

Topologically, how would this have been revealed in the string theory landscape?? See here and know that Clifford again deleted the short little post above. The point is I think for some reason once I mention string theory or evn M theory in relation to what is transpiring in the views of model development he doe not like this and would be support by Jacques as well.

That would be my job to convince them and anyone else that hold their views that taking our view to the microseconds, there is a definite relation to the timeline whether you agree with this or not. By introducing "the point of the cross over" you in effect have taken the model and presented it as part of the mechanism for this universe and effectively given new meaning to the "string theory landscape."

You may want it to be "background independent" like Lee wants it to be, but if you view the background as a oscillatory one, then any idea as configured to the mass of any particle, then you have define this particle as a energy relation? So Lee does not like the oscillatory universe?

It is contained "within the moment" of the creation of this universe, yet, we do not know what design this particle is to be in context of the microscopic view of geometrical topologically finishes? As the Genus 1 figure and as an expression of this universe? You had to know what was lying in those valleys, and the potentials of expression, and I relay that in the blackhole horizon as a potential hill.

The time has come for some changes in this blog and I have been thinking about moving on. While a layman, I do not like to be treated like a fool. Maybe not educated fully and with some work to do, but never as a fool.

Thursday, April 05, 2007

It looks as if moderation, or maybe technical problems, has set in for me at Cosmic Variance. So I have to go from the last statement made there by Lee that I was allowed to contribute. To continue with the points I am making.

I was glad to see Jacques was continuing where David B seems to have decided the futility of dealing with these issues of the String theory backlash.

Lee Smolin:When there was little selection we naturally got a wide diversity of types of scientists, which was good for science. My view is that we need that diversity, we need both the hill climbers and the valley crossers, the technical masters and the seers full of questions and ideas.

Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski in "The String Theory Landscape" September 2004 Scientific issue speak exactly to what Lee is saying and descriptively allow us to see the pattern underlying Lee's comment. Maybe George Musser will release it for the group to inspect here

If you did not continue with understanding the "topography of the energy involved" in terms of what the string theory landscape was doing, then you would have never understood the "hills and valleys" in the context of string theory landscape being described?

IN retrospect decisions we make will always resound with what we should have done, but that misses the boat when coming to the "creative abilities?" What we see may "institute a productive research group?" You exchange one for another?

Lee Smolin:Is string theory in fact perturbatively finite? Many experts think so. I worry that if there were a clear way to a proof it would have been found and published, so I find it difficult to have a strong expectation, either way, on this issue.

The fact that a way had been describe in terms of developing the "Triple Torus" speaks to the continued development of the string theory landscape? How could you conclusively finish off this statement and then from it describe the state of the union, when this had already been explained technically?

You had to see the context of the triple torus in relation too where the string landscape places were placing these modular forms. If I had said E8 and the continued development of modular form, what would this represent?

The complexity of the forms themself are limited and finite so how could one claim that such work on the landscape is futile in regards to infinities?

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Quantum Effect, however allow a manifold to change state abruptly at some point-to tunnel through the intervening ridge to a nearby lower valley.

Please take note of the underlined.

Well after some thought here in terms of the landscape, it was important from what I understood, that finiteness be explained in the String Theory landscape. That there were markers with which to measure this progress?

David has been careful to lead us through this and as a layman I am watching the way he is describing, so I am learning, as I learnt in other debates.

I hope Jacques that you would encourage David instead of express the futility of such an debate, I have learnt as so many others that you have to "talk past a certain point" if you can no longer get the subject moving beyond the ole rhetoric.

So while learning the difference between the "Fitness landscape" and the "String theory landscape, I learnt the difference is the "finiteness issue in the String theory Landscape?" This then been carried to the issue of Mandelstam and the triple torus?

So this in itself was what allowed us to say that the string theory landscape was indeed working toward the issue of Finiteness with which many have found to be a problem.

Sometimes I wonder why I care so much about working this process and I can only conclude that having my own motivations, and seeing where we had been lead to a point, I had see for myself where the limits of the discussion or debate was being left off.

I learnt to move this forward in face of the points reached. In terms of the same ole rhetoric supplied by Peter Woit. I found that if I wanted to learn anything further in regards to string theory I had to move beyond his arguments confronted, and I have even stopped listening to him. Why would you continue to do research, when a forgone conclusion had been adopted? It's easy, just adopt his point of view and why comment any further unless you had some ulterior motive? Some important information that you could discredit the string theory model itself?

Then it would all be done an dover with and we would have no need further for their services.

So for me having markers in place seems critical so I can progress from where future points being talked. I continue to learn from Lee Smolin and why it was important to differentiate between the String theory Landscape and the Fitness Landscape that he is extolling.

Now what does this mean and I needed the article from George Musser's editorial position with the Scientific America magazine to further what I had found. Who said a good magazine, holding a independent position, one way or the other, could not report "bias free" without interjecting it's thought to further embed in consciousness, that a perceived condition exists? That string theory is dead? No, that string theory is loosing ground in a debate? Hardly :)

Considering it's source, I would think about shifting the need for consultation to incentives to post docs, and then maybe Lee Smolin could come in and support that position and then it seems, the debate is going in their direction? Talking about getting away form the essence of the debate on string theory loosing ground. This is a smoke screen being put up when the issue technically were getting close, now required some kind of diversion tactic, of course bas don the same issue with which they perceive string theory is being supported by special interest, and then moving the perception to who should be hired and preferential treatment?

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

There are two posts that reflect the purpose of this post today. One is Clifford's linked through Lee Smolin's comment and the other, at Backreaction. Good Physics is Conflict

A lot of you may never understand the significance of the mystery that follows the thinking of the Holy Grail. Yet is it more the knowledge that can be gained from all soul's day, that on this occasion we may have called it Halloween.

We celebrated the past, in the living of today? You philosophize, while you become the thoughts of models created by science leaders shared? I do not think any have a "personality disorder" like I do:)

So of course when we think of the persons of science who walked before us (shoulders of giants), what are their whole stories, but what is evidenced to us as we read those words? So you compile your data accordingly, and from it, we say at certain spots, how are we to react to the challenge now facing us?

My present research concerns the problem of topology changing in string theory. It is currently believed that one has to sum over all string backgrounds and all topologies in doing the functional integral. I suspect that certain singular string backgrounds may be equivalent to topology changes, and that it is consequently only necessary to sum over string backgrounds. As a start I am investigating topology changes in two-dimensional target spaces. I am also interested in Seiberg-Witten invariants. Although much has been learned, some basic questions remain, and I hope to be able at least to understand the simpler of these questionsStanley Mandelstam-Professor Emeritus Particle Theory

As a lay person watching the debate it is difficult for me to discern the basis of these arguments. But I strive to go past what you think is surface in conduct in science's response, as some may show of themself in a reactionary pose. Should we all be so perfect, that the human condition is not also the example by which we shall progress in science?

Of course the thinking may seem so detached from reality that one asks for some reason with which to believe anything. It required, that the history of this approached dust off models in glass cabinets, that were our early descendants of the museum today.

How many of you know how to work in such abstract spaces, and know that what you are talking about has it's relationships in the physics of today? Or that, what satellites we use in measure of, have some correlation to how one may have seen "UV coordinates supplied by Gauss?"

The basic difference that I see is the way in which Lee Smolin adopts his views of what science is in relation too, "Two traditions in the search for fundamental Physics."

It is strange indeed to see perfection of Lee Smolin's comparison and having a look further down we understand the opening basis of his philosophical thoughts in regards to the title "against symmetry?"

But before I begin in that direction I wanted people to understand something that is held in the mind of the "condense matter theorist." In terms of the building blocks of nature. This is important basis of understanding, that any building block could emergent from anything, we had to identify where this symmetry existed, before it manifested in the "matter states of reality."

So it is important to understand what is emergent and what exists in the "theory of everything" if it did not consider the context of symmetry? AS a layman trying to get underneath the thinking process of any book development, it is important to me.

There is no doubt that the "timeliness of statements" can further define, support or not, problems that are being discussed. I don't mind being deleted on the point of the post above, because our good scientist's are getting into the heat of things. I am glad Arun stepped up to the plate.

Part of finally coming to some head on debate, was seeing how Peter Woit along with Lee Smolin were being challlenged for their views, while there had been this ground swell created against a model that was developed, like Loop quantum gravity was developed. One of the two traditions in search for the fundamental physics. Loop qunatum Gravity and String theory(must make sure there is the modification to M theory?) Shall this be included?

But as they are having this conversation, it is this openness that they have given of themselves that we learn of the intricacies of the basis of arguments, so the public is better informed as to what follows and what has to take place.

So while this issue is much more complex then just the exchange there, I have not forgotten what it is all about. Or why one may move from a certain position after they have summarize the views they had accumulated with regards to the subject of String/M theory as a model that has out lived it's usefulness, in terms of not providing a experimental frame work around it.